Well, I unfortunately cannot give you the "Best" out there, only the best that I have used.

I've had the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 for years in Nikon mount. Served well as a macro and portrait lens.

Recently tinkered with it on the Olympus OMD EM1 with a Fotodiox adapter employing the focus peaking. I like the results so far. Its got a good, precise focus ring. I've not used it enough adapted to say if it is worth getting solely for an m43 camera. Still experimenting. Got mine for $325.

Just wanted to update to say that the version i have is the newer 1:1 type, not the adaptall.

I've just received a Vivitar 55mm f2.8 macro in Minolta mount, see http://allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_951.html for info. This one goes to 1:1 without an additional adapter. Haven't had much of a chance to play with it yet (I also have a GX7) but it seems pretty good, and isn't huge.

Later versions of the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 will get you 1:1. I personally prefer the earlier Adaptall Tamron 90mm f/2.5 which gets you 1:2 and the 2x adapter which gets you to 180mm and 1:1 magnification.

These were taken with a Panasonic G1 with Tamron 90mm f/2.5 and appropriate flash. The last one (lily flower) was actually taken with a Samsung Pentax *ist rebranded DSLR. Its a versatile lens with one of the smoothest bokeh in my collection. I have more but I would need to dig them up and upload.

Attached Files:

I've enjoyed using the f2.8 Nikon 55mm AIS and f3.5 Olympus OM 50mm lenses. These go to 1:2 but you can get rings to take them to 1:1 (I use the PK-13 on the Nikon).

The Kiron 105mm is pretty stellar and goes to 1:1. It comes in many mounts and is sometimes seen as the Lester-Dine - I've got an OM one I picked up from a fellow forum-member. I suspect a Nikon or Canon 105 would be just as good if you need the reach or want 1:1.

I haven't used these as much since getting the Oly 60mm. I still use them on my film cameras or in the Nikons case, my D700.

I also have a Vivitar 90mm Macro in Konica mount. Nice lens. 90mm means the working distance is further away which can be a good thing, but it took me a while to anticipate my framing. At first, I was always having to take a step backwards. Some of these old 90's/100's are also pretty heavy. So, the weight and the focal length combined can really make hand-holding challenging. At least you have IBIS with your GX7.

My 4:3rdsSigma 105/2.8 is a very fine lens and an easy adapt. Manual focus is best. My favorite though is the Zuiko 135/4.5 on the auto extension tubes. Also can mount the 80mm with the 180 closeup lens.

In my personal experience, the 80s Sigma 90mm/2.8 MF macro is an outstanding lens that can out resolve a GX1's sensor. Only goes to 1:2 though. Extremely light and compact though.

I also have the Vivitar 55/2.8, and I like it as well. It's not as great optically, but it has a more convenient focal length and goes to 1:1 without adapters, and is still quite light and compact. Also renders quite nicely as a portrait lens wide open.

Why does it have to be an adapted lens? The O60 is a sick macro lens. A little long (physically) but extremely light weight. It can also serve as a pretty decent portrait lens to boot.

Click to expand...

I would love to have the O60, but considering I was able to get both my macro lenses for a total of $160, I don't feel too left out. Given how much you end up using MF for macro, a native lens is nice but less essential than in other cases.

I would love to have the O60, but considering I was able to get both my macro lenses for a total of $160, I don't feel too left out. Given how much you end up using MF for macro, a native lens is nice but less essential than in other cases.

Why does it have to be an adapted lens? The O60 is a sick macro lens. A little long (physically) but extremely light weight. It can also serve as a pretty decent portrait lens to boot.

Click to expand...

My personal experience is that Macro doesn't really demand the latest native lens. Unless you are shooting in very dynamic situations, AF actually works against you. As the focal plane is adjusted, you are also changing magnification which also changes the way the final image and how it deviates from what you initial perceived. In other words, you focus by shifting the camera+lens forward and backward rather than moving the elements inside the lens. Many macro photographers rely on focus rails for critical focus. As I mentioned before, lighting is also very important... typical apertures are relatively small than "normal" photography. It is not uncommon to see f/11. DOF is something you need to work into your favor (focus stacking too).

The following was shot with a wider aperture (f/5.6 IIRC). Notice how shallow the DOF. Macro is often one thing in which shallow DOF works against you

btw... That was with a Takumar 100mm (M42 mount) lens. Also a good one but doesn't obtain 1:1. Camera was an EPL-1.

Along with shooting at smaller apertures the most creative aspect (and contributes the final quality) is the lighting. You need ALOT of light. The light itself is such an important aspect of macro photography that I would argue its even more important that the lens itself.

The only "other" macro lens that begs to be mentioned is the outstanding MP-E65 with its 5x magnification. This is an extremely difficult lens to work but it is one that experienced macro Canon shooters strive to master. IT too is manual focus... again... most actually don't want it to AF.

My personal experience is that Macro doesn't really demand the latest native lens. Unless you are shooting in very dynamic situations, AF actually works against you.

Click to expand...

Very true. The chief advantage of a native lens for me is auto-aperture. Sometimes I need to shoot at f/8 or f/11 for depth of field. Although my EVF "gains up", it's certainly better for focusing when the aperture is wide open. If you're working slowly on a tripod, it's no problem focusing wide open then stopping down before tripping the shutter, but more challenging when trying to work quickly. And sometimes when working with a manual lens I've forgotten to stop down! Doh!

Also, I don't just use my macro lens for macro. I would have to say that, MOST often, it's for "close" work rather than true macro. And sometimes just because it's the right focal length (I do love the perspective of the native 45mm -- it seems "just right" to me). In most non-macro situations, I tend to use AF.

The Adaptall Tamron 90mm has a Kmount on it and I use an adapter that can quickly open and close the aperture diaphragm. The Takumar 100mm also a switch to do the same. It became natural BUT I forgot to mention it... Thanks for bringing it up....